Finding Diplomats for Perilous Posts

[SWJED]

7 September Washington Times - Finding Diplomats for Perilous Posts by Nicholas Kralev.

The State Department has begun the first major overhaul of its assignment system in decades, making it more difficult for U.S. diplomats to avoid serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and other dangerous posts that the Bush administration views as crucial in the war on terrorism.

Senior department officials said that no jobs will be available for bidding by Foreign Service officers until all open positions in the critical posts have been filled. They also said that they would resort to "directed assignments" if the new scheme fails to achieve the desired results.

"We are going to start filling the toughest posts first," one senior official said. "We are still doing this on a voluntary basis, but, obviously, if we ever have to go to directed assignments, we will, because the bottom line is, you have to get your best, most talented people in the hardest and most important positions."

Another official said that the best way for Foreign Service officers to ensure they have another job when their current assignment ends will be to opt for Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Pakistan and other hardship posts in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia...

The Aug. 16 memo came 12 days after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report critical of the State Department's staffing practices.

"We found that State's assignment system did not effectively meet the staffing needs of hardship posts, and that State had difficulty filling positions there, particularly at the mid-levels," the authors of the document said in a letter to Sen. Richard G. Lugar, Indiana Republican and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who requested the GAO report.

Mr. Lugar "feels the State Department still is not adequately staffed for stabilization and reconstruction efforts," said his spokesman, Andy Fisher.

"He has encouraged the administration to implement a section" of the Stabilization and Reconstruction bill that he co-sponsored with Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat and the committee's ranking member, which "would develop a 250-person active duty corps," Mr. Fisher said.

The State Department has had a hard time filling positions in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though it has offered various incentives for serving there, such as higher pay and benefits packages, better chances for promotion and guaranteeing officers one of their top five choices of an onward assignment.

Although most of those who volunteer for risky posts do so to serve their country, some of the officers are too junior for the positions they occupy, and others volunteer more for the benefits than the service, officials say. In addition, many sent to hardship posts arrive with minimum language, cultural and security training, which limits their effectiveness in the field.

During her last two visits to Baghdad in April, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was said to be disappointed by the quality of some of the officers at the embassy there.

Reaction to the new assignment system in the Foreign Service has been mixed. While officers understand the need to staff priority posts, "there is also widespread concern that long-standing assignment rules and practices are being hastily jettisoned," said the American Foreign Service Association, the diplomats' union...

[SWJED]

Posted by SWC member Mark at his Zenpundit blog.

... I wish to emphasize that I have great respect for FSO's. The risks that many of them face, sometimes operating in dangerous and fluid situations, are often unknown to the public and usually are forgotten by Congress. More of their unvarnished observations should make it up the food chain to key decision -makers than actually survive, in watered down form, armored by caveats into a state of meaninglessness. The State Department historically, for its many faults, does not receive the appropriations it actually needs to do it's job properly, invest in its personnel or carry out long-term strategic planning. Our career diplomatic personnel, particularly those who land difficult field assignments, need more support and fewer constraints from Washington.

That being said, our national security priorities must drive State Department policies, not the reverse. If you are in the Foreign Service and the idea of serving in Iraq is too much for you because of the danger or because you fundamentally disagree with the Bush administration's entire Mideast policy, then now is the time to look for another line of work. Presidents will come and go and policies will change, but any given president must be able to allocate diplomatic resources to critical foreign policy hot spots on an as-needed basis.

A more engaged diplomatic corps may mean less need to use the Marine Corps.

[SWJED]

13 September Washington Times - Fairness Vital in Filling Envoy Posts, Chief Says by Nicholas Kralev.

... The head of the U.S. Foreign Service has assured its members that the organization's new assignment system, designed to make serving in hardship posts more difficult to avoid, will be applied fairly across the board and will not favor diplomats with good connections to the State Department's top leadership.

In an interview with The Washington Times, which first reported the change last week, George M. Staples, the service's director-general, said it was high time discipline was enforced in the diplomatic corps in order to end the practice of scrambling to fill positions in dangerous places at the last minute.

"What organization in the world would not fill its highest-priority and most difficult posts first? These are times we haven't faced in the Foreign Service in a long time. There must be equity and fairness in the way we assign people and employ our personnel around the world," Mr. Staples said...

His remarks came in response to concerns of U.S. diplomats -- expressed in messages to the Times and to their union, the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) -- that those who have managed to avoid service in hardship posts will continue to do so because of whom they know.

"More than a few remain skeptical that the changes will affect those who have traditionally been the old system's biggest beneficiaries," AFSA said in a memorandum to its members. It cited what is known as "needs of the service" exceptions that spare certain diplomats from serving in perilous places in favor of important positions elsewhere.

Several Foreign Service officers pointed out that their colleagues who work as staff aides to the secretary of state and other senior officials have for years been rewarded with cozy onward assignments in developed countries.

"Everyone knows that being a staffer in Washington pays off -- not only with a nice job afterwards, but when it comes to promotion as well," one officer said...

[Tom Odom]

Personally I believe that 2 things have to happen to make the Foreign Service more functional:

A. Establish a stringent criterion for political appointments and limit their numbers and options. I have personally seen too many political appointees in key posts (regardless of administration). There has to be a sense in the Foreign Service of service to the constitution and the foreign policy interests of the U.S. beyond rewarding a dentist for large monetary donations to his party's efforts with an Ambassadorship

B. Model the Foreign Service on the military PME. Create a Foreign Service academy/FS ROTC program that encompasses State, AID, USIA, and perhaps CIA and start growing FSOs versus selecting them through skewed exams and old boy networking. And at later stages merge the FSO PME with the military and other gov agencies ala NDU.

Otherwise, current reform efforts are more political and bandaid in their effects than true changes.

best

Tom

[loki]

the hiring process has to change, I understand the testing is being modernized, however the process itself must change. The folks that are most adept for these posts are not allowed past initial screening. I believe this is due to flags thrown up on the bio section, showing that a person is either adventurous, or a risk taker. Currently both are no no's for overseas representation. A person who has a flawless bio is suspect in my opinion, as they are often so in the middle, as to be ineffective in any capacity besides accounting or record keeping.

[John T. Fishel]

Hi Tom,

I fully agree with your second point; it would improve the caliber of service.

Regarding your first: As far as I know the only political appointees in US missions overseas are ambassadors. On average, 70% are career FSOs. The remaining 30% are politicals; some of whom are superb while others live up to the stereotype of the political ambassador. While most career FSO ambassadors are excellent like Deane Hinton and Ed Corr, others are complete duds - like some generals we all know. Some of the outstanding politicals include Edwin O. Reischauer in Japan and John Kenneth Galbraith in India. In many cases, the best politicals have prior international experience as these examples did. I would certainly like to see all American ambassadors fully qualified in both language and region as well as in the countries to which they are assigned. Nevertheless, I doubt that presidents will give up ambassadorships as political rewards - again regardless of party

On that cheery note, hasta pronto

John

[tequila]

Staffing crisis at U.S. foreign service - 6 June, LATIMES.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have overstretched the U.S. foreign service, damaging its staffers' morale and threatening its performance around the world, a coalition of advocates for diplomats charged Tuesday.

The Foreign Affairs Council, a group of 11 nonprofit organizations, said in a report that the State Department would need to hire 1,100 foreign service officers simply to restore the capabilities it had when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took her post at the beginning of 2005.

"The foreign service is at the front end of a personnel crisis, and if something isn't done … we're going to have a very, very serious situation a year or so from now," said Thomas Boyatt, a retired U.S. ambassador and the council's president, at a news conference ...

[Tom Odom]

"Widespread anecdotal evidence suggests worsening morale" under Miss Rice, yesterday's report said. "This decline is exacerbated by the fact that, unlike colleagues at some sister agencies, all of State's junior and mid-level officers take an immediate cut in base pay of 18.6 percent upon departing Washington for an overseas assignment."

This is from the ebird as taken from the Wash Times. I would call this one a red herring. FSOs pay goes up when they go overseas with COLA, Post Differential, and Hazard Pay. I was married to one; she lost pay by coming to DC.

That aside, the Foreign Service desperately needs a central creed that is imbued through an echeloned educational and development system. Until that happens, this phenomenon will continue.

Tom

[MASON]

If DOD is a an example

You do get paid more in DC.
I came from Europe with a very high COLA
The higher BAH in DC More than makes up the difference

[Tom Odom]

MASON,

I don't know where you were in Europe but in the case of FSOs in embassies like the Congo, the COLA, post differential of 35% of base pay, and danger pay dwarfs local DC adjustments. In fact the trend within State and AID has been for youngsters to go to such places to get started on the right foot, matched with senior folks who retire from such posts and have their retirement pay calculated on that higher pay scale.

Tom

PS

I would also point out that the irony of junior officers who belong to the Foreign Service complaining about overseas assignments.

[Stan]

MASON,

I don't know where you were in Europe but in the case of FSOs in embassies like the Congo, the COLA, post differential of 35% of base pay, and danger pay dwarfs local DC adjustments. In fact the trend within State and AID has been for youngsters to go to such places to get started on the right foot, matched with senior folks who retire from such posts and have their retirement pay calculated on that higher pay scale.

Tom

PS

I would also point out that the irony of junior officers who belong to the Foreign Service complaining about overeas assignments.

The council said Rice has required diplomats to carry out a more aggressive mission of "transformational diplomacy" to prod other countries to adhere to democratic principles.

But at the same time, envoys have had to cope with wartime strains, inadequate language and skills training and more overtime work.

In addition, about 750 have been required to take one-year stints in sometimes dangerous postings where they are not allowed to bring their families, the group said.

Geez Tom, overtime in agressive missions of transformational diplomacy - is that like being shot at while 'John jah jah' barks commands from his machine-gun nest 1,000 miles away in his cozy villa ?!

Is that what we were doing in the Army for even less money ?

For the uninitiated herein, I might add that our 'shop' originally manned with 19 (13-DAO and 6-SAO), was reduced to 2 in four days

They all mysteriously came to post with 3/3/3 language skills and 250 bucks a month, but never managed to read a friggin newspaper, nor go outside the embassy walls.

A one-year tour without your family ? You mean like the 350,000 troops all over creation ? What, they don't miss their loved ones ?

Sorry, I have no sympathy for this...whatsoever

What a load of malarkey !

[MASON]

18% seems like an over dramatization.

At core it is fundamentally a leadership problem. The mid-level career officers seem to be attempting to weather through their appointed masters tenures hoping for future missions and or guidance more to their taste. The internal battles in agencies and organizations are more signifigant on a personal level for careerists than the percieved temporary external situations they are tasked with undertaking. As a result the junior officers see and bare the consequences of the friction seemingly with out coherant purpose and with less invested look elswhere.

It is the FOREIGN Service

[Tom Odom]

18% seems like an over dramatization.

At core it is fundamentally a leadership problem. The mid-level career officers seem to be attempting to weather through their appointed masters tenures hoping for future missions and or guidance more to their taste. The internal battles in agencies and organizations are more signifigant on a personal level for careerists than the percieved temporary external situations they are tasked with undertaking. As a result the junior officers see and bare the consequences of the friction seemingly with out coherant purpose and with less invested look elswhere.

You got it. The talent pool in the FSO field is enormous; it is not mentored and nurtured in a system that will further develop that talent.

Tom